GANPAT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This petition under Section 482 Cr PC has been preferred against the order D/- 15-4-93 passed by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur, whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners and affirmed the order D/- 23-10-92 passed by the Learned Addl. District Magistrate, City Jodhpur under Section 146 Cr. PC attaching the subject matter of dispute namely agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 35 comprising 3 Bigha 14 biswas situated in village Poonjla Teh. Jodhpur Distt. Jodhpur.

(3.) I have heard Shri M. L. Chaudary learned counsel for the petitioners and learned public prosecutor Shri Thakur and Shri Bhatt learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 and carefully perused the relevant record. The main contention of Shri Chaudary is that the disputed land is in the continuous cultivation possession of the petitioners, that the same is part of Khasra No. 35, total area 9 Bigha 14 Biswas, that the disputed land was never demarcated and possession thereof was not handed to non-petitioner No. 2 and that the learned Additional District Magistrate without any sufficient reason arbitrarily issued the preliminary order D/- 25-8-92 and thereafter on the application of non-petitioner No. 2 illegally passed the order of attachment on 23-10-93. According to him, no notice of the application filed by the non-petitioner No. 2 under Section 146(1) Cr PC was served on petitioner No. 4 Yudhister. He has further submitted that the petitioners had filed an application under Section 91 Cr PC for sending for the relevant file from the Tehsildar but the said file was not called for and as such a great prejudice has been caused to them.